From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:08:06 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] page migration: Reorder functions in migrate.c Message-Id: <20060428150806.057b0bac.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060428060302.30257.76871.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> References: <20060428060302.30257.76871.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: > > page migration: Reorder functions in migrate.c I'm a bit concerned about the way these migration patches are shaping up. - There was quite a lot of rework against the initial batch of "swapless" patches. I haven't yet found the time to sit down and review the end result. - The initial batch of "swapless" patches needed a whole barrage of fixups to make the kernel compile. - The patch series is rather straggly now: later patches are fixing up code which was added in multiple earlier patches, so refactoring it all logically is non-trivial. - I have vague feelings of disquiet regarding the whole thing and would like to find the time to sit down and take a closer look at what's going on in there. This is a bit hard with the patches factored as they are now. So I'm thinking it'd be good (for me, at least) if I were to drop the lot and ask you to refactor the patch series back into a logical sequence, make sure all the fixups are folded into the right places so we can generally take a fresh look at what you're proposing. How hurtful would that be? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org